Google fixes two critical Chrome flaws

User Comments: 10

1. August 25, 2009 7:01 PM
   

   strategic, TechSpot Paladin, said:

   Interesting, I wonder if this has anything to do with Google being so "nosy"...

   Reply
2. August 25, 2009 7:11 PM
   

   red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

   doesn't Mozilla get its funding from Google? or did I misunderstand that in the past?

   Reply
3. August 25, 2009 7:32 PM
   Staff
   

   Matthew, TechSpot Staff, said:

   @red1776: Last I knew, the two had an agreement over Google being the default search provider for Firefox. I'm pretty sure they still have that locked down for a few years (unless something has changed). The last time I read anything about it (6+ months ago I believe) that deal made up some 80-90% of Mozilla's income.

   Reply
4. August 25, 2009 7:36 PM
   

   strategic, TechSpot Paladin, said:

   doesn't Mozilla get its funding from Google? or did I misunderstand that in the past?

   I guess you're right Red, I never knew that until I found this article.

   Through revenue that comes from search ads, Google supplied Mozilla with $66 million of its $75 million in 2007 revenue, the last year for which figures are publicly available.

   Reply
5. August 25, 2009 8:09 PM
   

   red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

   Matthew said:

   @red1776: Last I knew, the two had an agreement over Google being the default search provider for Firefox. I'm pretty sure they still have that locked down for a few years (unless something has changed). The last time I read anything about it (6+ months ago I believe) that deal made up some 80-90% of Mozilla's income.

   Thanks Matthew ,

   i was just wondering then why it would be so 'interesting' that the Mozilla team would have discovered the flaw since they are financially joined ,and have a common interest in each others success.

   Reply
6. August 25, 2009 11:55 PM
   Guest said:

   There are two problems with this article:

   * The flaws are rated "High", not "Critical". Perhaps your choice of "critical" was casual, but as it's a meaningful security rating, it's misleading.

   * The flaws could not result in direct system compromise and arbitrary code execution because they were contained by the sandbox. Black hats would also need a flaw in the sandbox to break out of it, combined with one of these flaws, to do real damage. This is precisely why we created the sandbox: to provide defense in depth.

   --Peter Kasting, Chromium developer

   Reply
7. August 26, 2009 12:37 AM
   

   AndrestheBean said:

   There are two problems with this article:

   * The flaws are rated "High", not "Critical". Perhaps your choice of "critical" was casual, but as it's a meaningful security rating, it's misleading.

   * The flaws could not result in direct system compromise and arbitrary code execution because they were contained by the sandbox. Black hats would also need a flaw in the sandbox to break out of it, combined with one of these flaws, to do real damage. This is precisely why we created the sandbox: to provide defense in depth.

   --Peter Kasting, Chromium developer

   i get the feeling this guy is important.

   Reply
8. August 26, 2009 1:33 AM
   Guest said:

   I'm glad someone noticed the collaboration with Mozilla. There's a surprisingly large amount of behind-the-scenes collaboration between browser vendors. For example, this blog post illustrates some of the bi-directional sharing between Google and the other browser vendors:

   http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2009/07/improving-w
   b-browser-security.html

   Chris Evans, Chrome Security Team

   Reply
9. August 26, 2009 3:51 AM
   Staff
   

   Julio Franco, TechSpot Editor, said:

   @Guest (Peter) - Thank you for your feedback. We have updated the original post with a proper correction.

   Reply
10. August 26, 2009 5:08 AM
    

    Phantasm66 said:

    That's cool you saw the article and corrected it Peter.

    Reply

Recently commented stories